2 responses from Mr Ray Hodgson (Individual)
1. Mr Ray Hodgson (Individual) : 16 Apr 2012 10:32:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
Site MN6
Policy LA1.7
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The 'reasons' for not including this area for development into the larger M11M site do not stand up to examination.
These include,
1. Land Levels: From a visual perspective it is obvious that M11M has a greater height differential than MN6. Ordanance survey maps of the area confirm this.
2. Screening: The Dykelands building is already so well screened by walls and trees that most people are not even aware of its existance. This screening was no doubt put in place to block the view and noise of the railway that runs between Dykelands and MN6.
3. Orientation of the Beehive Cottages: This row of cottages are orientated such that the windows of the properties look over M11M rather than MN6. No windows are overlooking site MN6 from any of the properties in this row.
4. Development Potential: This area is available and deliverable for development. If the interest already shown in the development of this site is taken into concideration, there is both a need and a desire for this to be included in the development area.
5. Natural Boundary: The railway and tha A590 form a natural boundary to the development site, hence, the decision not to include MN6, which is within that boundary, does not stand up to scrutiny.
A look at Google earth and Ordanance survey maps of the area and from the information given above, it is obvious that the grounds you have given for excluding MN6 from development are unsound. They do not stand up to scrutiny.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Ray Hodgson (Individual) : 15 May 2012 16:04:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.7 Business and Science Park Sites - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
MN6#
Policy LA1.7
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
Yes
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
The 'reasons' for not including this area for development into the larger M11M site do not stand up to examination.
These include,
1. Land Levels: From a visual perspective it is obvious that M11M has a greater height differential than MN6. Ordanance survey maps of the area confirm this.
2. Screening: The Dykelands building is already so well screened by walls and trees that most people are not even aware of its existance. This screening was no doubt put in place to block the view and noise of the railway that runs between Dykelands and MN6.
3. Orientation of the Beehive Cottages: This row of cottages are orientated such that the windows of the properties look over M11M rather than MN6. No windows are overlooking site MN6 from any of the properties in this row.
4. Development Potential: This area is available and deliverable for development. If the interest already shown in the development of this site is taken into concideration, there is both a need and a desire for this to be included in the development area.
5. Natural Boundary: The railway and tha A590 form a natural boundary to the development site, hence, the decision not to include MN6, which is within that boundary, does not stand up to scrutiny.
A look at Google earth and Ordanance survey maps of the area and from the information given above, it is obvious that the grounds you have given for excluding MN6 from development are unsound. They do not stand up to scrutiny.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me